sola virtus invicta

WW2

Support for my right to freedom of expression was never going to strongly manifest itself in mainstream press reports. Social media provides a more balanced outlook, although most alt-lite personalities dare not broach the subject of my prosecution. It was interesting to note some tentative mainstream support for Markus Meecham aka Count Dankula, found guilty last month in Scotland of causing gross offence after teaching his girlfriend’s pug to lift its paw on the command ‘Gas the Jews!’.

Meecham now has over 90,000 Twitter followers and 170,000 YouTube subscribers: being found guilty certainly hasn’t put a spanner in his works. Contrary to my songs, it seems Count Dankula’s mischief-making is not considered to be that much of an effective weapon against New World Order orthodoxy. Indeed, Meecham has since been compensated for his sins with a media career. Even Tommy Robinson turned out to report on the recovering communist’s trial. Doubtful that Israel-loving Yaxley-Lennon will be doing the same when the time comes for my verdict to be pronounced. Also unlikely that Ricky Gervais, David Baddiel and Jonathan Pie will be voicing their concerns – as they did regards Meecham – if I, too, am found guilty.Continue reading →

By and large, the general public accepts the given narrative of WW2. The victors get to write history, thereafter ensuring that their version of events is reinforced by way of education, media and, in particular, the funding of onside lawmakers who will eventually be persuaded to bring about legislation that will effectively silence dissenting views. Here in the UK, my court case proceedings show that we are teetering on the brink of a ‘Holocaust’ denial law, as it were, being ushered in through the back door. Nevertheless, if I am found guilty in January, the appeal process will be used, if necessary to the highest level. A brief update of Monday’s hearing can be found here.

Broomfield did not have the courage to publish my comment below his article which appeared late last Sunday. Suspecting this might be the case, I made a copy. Firstly, here’s Broomfield’s section about me:

My unpublished comment:

As Matt Broomfield would appear to have sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, it seems rather strange that he omits to mention references I made about Palestine in my songs and in my talk.

In fact, no doubt relying on memory, Broomfield also manages to misquote, misinterpret and mislead in regard to what I actually said that day. My performance was scripted and was filmed – although not uploaded to YouTube for reasons of jurisprudence.

I most certainly did not say I was in trouble “just for writing a few songs offensive to Jews”, nor did I add any “Come on!” following my remark about Professor Faurisson’s 88th birthday in Vichy.

Most perplexing of all is that this meeting took place three months ago in February, which perhaps partly explains Broomfield’s misquotes and omissions. The judge mentioned recused herself over a month ago and although I am certainly still on bail, this is not the same as being ‘out’ on bail.

Rather than play Kosher Brother, perhaps Broomfield could have investigated why British police closed their investigation into the online harassment and death threats I’ve received since 2015 – investigation closed just two weeks before I was arrested by the same police force for writing a couple of songs? Now that would have been some proper journalism – rather than the poisonous garbage he chooses to spread here.

Then again, Broomfield perhaps believes my grandfather, great-grandfather and countless others who died fighting for this country were fighting so that Brits would face prosecution in their own land for writing satirical songs which upset Jews? Would the author also argue that these men fought and died in order to give queer men the right to marry and adopt children?

And for all those on this thread rambling on and on about the ‘Holocaust’, why not show some proof – or at least accept an honourable debate – rather than trying to criminalise opinions.

***

Update: will Tommy ‘none of my friends and family are white’ Robinson be turning up at Broomfield’s house with a video camera?

A question to which revisionists would like a convincing answer: What is the explanation for the irrational behaviour of an entire people which apparently believes in an absurd (Holocaust) legend (myth)?

The Holocaust – with its gas chambers which constantly change location; its millions of victims who disappear without a trace into blue vapour at Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka, after being murdered by Hitler’s SS butchers, either with Zyklon B insecticide or Diesel exhaust, not to mention mass shootings Babi Yar-style (where the victims also disappear without a trace) – is, and remains, first and foremost a unique proof of the monumental stupidity of our age. In the early 1980s – when the major absurdities of the Holocaust swindle had already been exploded, with the exception of a few details – most revisionist researchers thought it inconceivable that the legend could persist more than a few more years. Since then, more than fifteen years have elapsed, and the Lie continues to drag out its existence, filthier and more luxuriant than ever! Cracks are appearing in the edifice of lies, doubts are appearing – here and there, in the press, in a few articles, in many private conversations – as to the truth of the Establishment version of the fate of the Jews under the Third Reich.

People mention the possibility of minor errors or exaggerations; but almost everyone continues to accept the story as basically correct. It is precisely this general acceptance which is the biggest puzzle to revisionists – and to any reasonable person with a minimum knowledge of history. Really, how can anyone of normal intelligence, for example, view the room which is shown to millions of tourists on the grounds of the former camp of Auschwitz as the “only Nazi gas chamber remaining in original condition”, without immediately realising that the physical capacity of the room – not to mention its immediate surroundings, for example, its proximity to the hospital located nearby – would make any mass execution using a highly dangerous poison gas impossible? The unspeakable atrocity stories spewed forth to visitors by officials of the Auschwitz Museum, deserve only ridicule. But the very opposite occurs: in these shrines dedicated to the Holocaust religion, people become intellectual cripples: awe-struck, their senses paralysed, they gape at everything as if it were plausible, and solemnly swallow nonsensical fairy tales! Even the generation of Germans which lived through the war – i.e., the “generation of criminals”, those who supported the National Socialist system which is now slandered all over the world, who remained true to that system and fought for it to the bitter end, with unprecedented self-sacrifice and devotion of spirit – that generation no longer knows what to believe after half a century of filth and lies.

They confuse their personal firsthand experience, that which they saw and experienced themselves, with that which they think they should have seen or experienced (according to the official version of history). Faced with the accusations and ignorance of succeeding generations, the generation of the war years joins in with the chorus of self-incrimination or takes refuge in resigned silence. And yet, – if the gas chambers were technically impossible and the whole story is therefore a lie; – if no material evidence of the crime remains, since the Nazis “destroyed all traces of their crimes at the last moment”; – if millions of bodies simply disappeared into blue vapour, so that not a single body of a single gassing victim has ever been found; – if the official version of history is based on nothing but contradictory “eyewitness testimonies” of witnesses who were never subjected to cross-examination, and confessions extorted from “criminals”; – if a forensic report, including a reconstruction as is ordinary practice in an ordinary murder case, has never even been attempted; – if expert reports on the technical feasibility of the mass gassings are never performed by the courts, but only on behalf of private parties, and if no technical refutation of these reports can be produced. Then how is it then possible for the world to believe this series of grotesque hallucinations?

If you ask these questions, most people are either surprised or shocked. But some people, particularly, young people – who often react spontaneously and emotionally – immediately and spontaneously declare their conviction that the Holocaust is absurd. One hears remarks like the following: “How could I have believed such nonsense for all those years?” The revisionist may perhaps be pleased in the belief that he has won a new adherent. But in most cases, this is a great mistake. When the shock wears off – the shock which sets in following the discovery of a new truth – the new convert returns to his old environment, where it is almost impossible to find any information on the subject other than all-pervading Holocaust propaganda. The average person lacks the courage to deviate from his environment; the mass media, of course, are all around us. Upon the slightest expression of doubts, the inevitable reply will be that he has spoken with a horrid, lying Nazi, that he has heard a load of lies, and that he had better forget everything he heard. This is particularly true, unless the convert is a hero willing to jeopardise his social and professional position for historical truth. Since even the crudest lie can be obfuscated and explained away, the heretic falls away from his new belief and returns to the shrine of the incredible. Credo quia absurdum est. What at first seemed absurd – in comparison to reasonable information about the absurdity of the Holocaust religion – once again seems convincing. In a society in which propagandists control the media, those who stray from the fold are quick to permit themselves to be persuaded once again that the unanimous opinion (Vox Populi, Vox Dei) which confirmed the reality of the mass extermination of the Jews for over a half a century, bears incomparably more weight than the statements of a single “Nazi”.

This abandonment of the elementary duty to seek the truth can, however, have unexpectedly unpleasant results. Today, even re-educated Germans – despite their anti-fascist fanaticism – are regarded with mistrust, even hostility, by many people in all parts of the world.

The Zionists and their stooges are skilful at ensuring the perpetuation of this hostility, for example, through hundreds of films, largely produced by Jews, which depict German soldiers either as simple fools or sadistic beasts.

The passivity and cowardice of the majority of the German people today is their decisive contribution to the perpetuation endless hatred. All of German contemporary history has been turned into a sort of crime sheet by the Allied victors. The Germans swallow everything in complete passivity.

A person who refuses to defend himself, ought not to wonder if he is found guilty. He deserves no respect, and should expect none. Germans compete with each other in vomiting upon their own people and themselves at the same time. Do they really expect to gain any sympathy abroad in this way?

Let us nevertheless attempt to understand the reasons for this apparently illogical behaviour on the part of the German people.

Perhaps the main reason for it is the knowledge, or instinctive sense, that any critical discussion of the so-called Holocaust is dangerous; it can cost the victim his job, his position in society, and even destroy his family. In addition, many people don’t want to know much about the Holocaust, which is the principal accusation against the German people, since they intuitively feel that many things about it simply cannot be true. They are afraid to know whether the Holocaust is a pack of lies, or just a lie or two; anyone doubting the details of the official version of history runs the risk of being compelled to question the story as a whole.

And that is just what our contemporaries, set on their peace and quiet and comfort at any price, do not want. On the other hand, it is not easy to live with a lie which one should long ago have recognised as such, and, at the same time, to act as if it were no lie at all. For example, how should the mother of a family, who knows to a certainty that the gas chamber yarn is a lie, answer a child who asks, eyes wide-open with wonder: “Mama, teacher told us that German soldiers gassed the Jews. Did Grandpa gas the Jews, too?” The best way to evade a question like that, which is complex and painful, is simply to know nothing. So the mother simply tells the over-curious child, “I don’t know, ask your teacher.”

The Holocaust is not just a lie, it is a crime. It is a crime because it not only justifies innumerable other crimes, but because it create a huge mass of hatred, which in turn contains the potential for new crimes.

People whose souls have been drenched in the hatred of the Holocaust Lie must be counted among its victims. This includes the millions of twelve to fifteen-year old school children dragged through the memorials of former concentration camps, often weeping uncontrollably at the atrocity stories and lies vomited up at them.

How much suffering, how much heartbreak, how many tragedies are due to the so-called “Holocaust”, this hair-raising Lie of the Century, which the Jews invented, crammed down our throats, and have defended tooth and nail, with fines, with abuse, with imprisonment, for over half a century?

It is painful to think of the thousands, indeed tens of thousands, of people who have been humiliated, persecuted, imprisoned, or even executed in the name of this shameless swindle. It is pathetic to see the once-great German people, having lost its pride, its sense of direction, its self-respect, to such an extent that it no longer dares to defend itself against a flood of slander and is too ashamed to look itself in the face. One single mention of the “gas chambers”, the extermination of the Jews, was enough to justify purging entire cities and provinces of their German population. Almost 17 million people were driven from their homes between 1944 and 1948 in an unbroken series of atrocities during which over two million died.

“After what they did to the Jews, they had it coming to them”, is the classical justification.

It is truly disgusting to think of the millions of people all over the world watching Marvin Chomsky, Claude Lanzmann, Steven Spielberg and all the others – Holocaust, Shoah, Schindler’s List, etc. – in the cinemas, on television – and taking it all seriously. The Jews – or more exactly, those who claim to speak for the Jews – invented a story which they’ve called the Shoah or the Holocaust, and which they now claim is the history of their people.

The Holocaust money-making machine has brought them such tremendous advantages, that they can no longer live without it. But they made one fatal error: the Holocaust swindle is so endlessly absurd that its inventors can only take refuge in a suicide charge; having lost all sense of proportion, they have gone too far and will soon come crashing down.

To suppress all open debate on the subject appears an impossibility in the long run, despite all manner of repression. From minor explanations to wholesale re-writing, including whole new “Revised Versions”, the profiteers of the myth continue to entangle themselves in increasingly greater numbers of contradictions; the fables of today contradict the fables told yesterday; the defenders of the official version of history are being compelled to make so many concessions that more and more people are starting to wonder about it all.

Doubts expressed in private conversation no longer shock as much as they did a few years ago; it is getting easier for revisionists to gain a hearing. In brief: for the exterminationists, the time is running out. Increasingly hysterical repression is an unmistakable sign of growing panic. It is also a sign of weakness.

Instead of listening to the discussion, they simply grab for a truncheon. But how long can they get away with it? The revisionists must not hope for quick victory; it will not come overnight. They should remember the wisdom expressed in the phrase from the Czech philosopher, Karel Capek, who said: “Truth must be smuggled. It must be distributed in small doses. A drop here, a drop there — until people get used to it. Not all at once.

At a time when the Lie appears to be triumphing without hindrance, we would like to close with an optimistic message. We wish to make the following appeal:

All of you, all friends of the truth, both known and unknown, from many European countries, those who, like Günter Deckert and Gottfried Kuessel, Ernst Zundel, have sat in German and Austrian prisons for “denying the existence of the gas chambers”, or who have been compelled to go into exile like Remer and Rudolf, all persecuted revisionists and nationalists – do not lose your courage, since your struggle against state-ordained lies is not in vain. Your courage, the sacrifice of a few, will help to free entire nations and peoples, including the German and Russian peoples – from the darkness which has so long covered them.

A brief resumé of the hearing held last week in Paris, by Alison Chabloz.

In contrast to the Court of Appeal hearing given last March, this latest bout of Ziocon persecution of revisionist, Robert Faurisson, was held in the 17° Chambre Correctionelle of the High Court at the Palais de Justice in Paris, ensuring that numerous members of the public who’d gathered there to support the professor were able to witness the proceedings from the court room’s spacious gallery.

Starting an hour late owing to the morning session having overrun the allocated time-slot, magistrates initially dealt with several other cases, lasting for almost another hour, before it was the turn of the world’s foremost ‘Holocaust’ revisionist to defend himself against three separate charges. There was no apology forthcoming from the court for this delay which of course had the negative effect of reducing valuable debating time as well as causing magistrates to rush the proceedings.

Two charges for contesting a crime against humanity (one of which brought by former Justice Minister, Pascal Clément) and a third for racial defamation brought by the LICRA – Ligue contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme.

All three complaints targeted a speech made by the professor in 2006 at a conference on the ‘Holocaust’ in Tehran, Iran. A star witness in the person of Lady Michele Renouf who had travelled from London for the hearing would testify after the initial debates. For once, the number of lawyers on the accused benches seemed to outnumber those of the prosecution by five to two (five to three, if we include the state prosecutor). In reality, however, Robert Faurisson’s defence was assured by Maître Damien Viguier alone. Three immense dossiers were produced and placed on the judge’s desk almost completely hiding the magistrate himself. Cue: hushed, slightly amused tittering from the public benches.

The defence’s principle argument rested on the fact that Faurisson’s speech in Tehran had been delivered in English and had lasted only ten minutes. As his speech had been given outside French territory, French law would not apply. In this case, however, it was the professor’s written essay The Victories of Revisionism, published in Tehran then distributed on the Internet, that had led to the three charges. The article details the major successes of Robert Faurisson’s revisionist career and, in particular, confessions of his adversaries which substantiate the professor’s outright technical and moral victory over his detractors. It is this same article which Maître Viguier uses consistently in defence of his client during the many trials brought by a judicial system which is plainly rotten to the core.

The judge, a man in his forties with curly, dark ginger hair and a beard, began by reading Faurisson’s article (see Part 1 and Part 2). The longer the reading went on, the more the judge seemed to be taking in Faurisson’s words. Towards the end, the judge’s face had completely disappeared behind the hand-held, stapled bundle of A4 sheets.

Faurisson’s counsel, Maître Vigiuer, asked that the two complaints for contesting crimes against humanity be nullified because of legal non-compliance. After a short break for deliberation, the court reserved its ruling in relation to this matter until September 27. Thus, only the third charge of ‘racial defamation’ would be deliberated on this humid afternoon in the centre of the French capital.

The charge of defamation brought by LICRA concerned the following passages of Faurisson’s article:

“President Ahmadinejad (then head of the Islamic Republic of Iran) used the right word when he said that the alleged Holocaust of the Jews is a myth: that is to say, a belief maintained by credulity or ignorance.

“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of Jews form one and the same historical lie, which allowed a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”

The accusation’s charge of defamation lay solely on the ‘argument’ that, by these statements, Faurisson was clearly targeting the Jewish community. The judge asked Faurisson to explain.

Faurisson’s retorts were confident and unrelenting: citing Israel and international Zionism is not the same as citing “the Jews”. The public as well as the officers of the court present were then treated to an hour and a half’s exposé by the man himself. Unlike orthodox historians who merely repeat the given narrative, he would actually go out on the job, tape measure in hand. The 60-word phrase, he explained, is the summary of his lifetime’s work in the field of revisionism. As he advised his students, the key to success when researching any subject is the ability to resume this work in a phrase of approximately 60 words. The enormous body of work he carried out began in the 1960s when he first asked:

“Show me a photo, an architect’s plan or even a drawing of a gas chamber.”

Faurisson continued his testimony with an explanation of Rudolf Höss’ witness statement at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, gained via torture, in particular sleep deprivation. Then, a brief lesson on the explosive quality of Zyklon-B with analysis of actual execution chambers which employ this same gas (no longer used) in the USA. In the 187 pages of court transcripts from Nuremberg concerning Auschwitz, practically nothing is dedicated to the subject of gassing.

The professor went on to expose the lies of Elie Wiesel in his book Night as well as other fabrications concerning execution by boiling water at Treblinka which also feature in the Nuremberg transcript. So many false witnesses: only last week we learned of yet another in the news.

The judge, at this point, interjects with “You’ve therefore not modified your proposals after all this time..?” The female magistrate present appears to have fallen asleep! Such is the contempt for Faurisson’s indisputable strength of character, as apparent and all the more humbling here and now, at the grand old age of 87, as when he started his research more than six decades ago. Faurisson’s conclusions are based on fact, documented evidence, repeatable scientific experiment and, above all, are the fruit of a lifetime’s study and research. What reason other than insanity would make him change his proposals “after all this time”?

Faurisson elaborates on the magical six million number. In August, 1944, Wilhelm Hötll, friend of Eichman, gave a witness statement purporting that the sensational sum could be reached by adding the four million in Auschwitz ‘extermination camp’ to another two million slain Soviets. This was the first time the phrase extermination camp was used in place of concentration camp. However, Hötll was never called to testify at Nuremberg.

The prosecution declines the opportunity to grill Faurisson; Maître Vigiuer invites the professor to talk about the conference in Iran.

Contrary to media reports, the 2006 conference was inclusive of all opinions concerning the ‘Holocaust’. The professor remembers one adversary challenging him to go to the National Archives in Washington where he would see the evidence that his findings were erroneous. The poor fellow hadn’t bargained on the professor already having been to these very same archives where, amongst other clues, he uncovered documents relating to the 32 RAF sorties over Auschwitz, none of which had succeeded in showing smoke billowing out from the crematoria chimneys.

Maître Viguier questions the professor further on the origin of all these lies surrounding the “Holocaust”. Faurisson replies that it’s impossible to say; the rumour runs and runs. The CICR had also heard rumours of gas chambers at Auschwitz, yet their investigation team was unable to find anyone confirming these rumours. Even Eric Conan in French weekly, L’Express, said of the gas chamber exhibit at Auschwitz “Tout y est faux” – everything is false. 1.7 million people visit Auschwitz annually.

At this point, the judge decides to call Lady Renouf to hear her witness statement. As this will be in English, the court has arranged for an accredited translator to be present. After giving her name and details, Lady Renouf first congratulates Maître Viguier for his bravery in accepting to defend the professor. Her witness statement follows in short phrases which are immediately translated for the benefit of the court. We hear confirmation that Faurisson’s speech was an impromptu affair which lasted only ten minutes and Lady Renouf makes reference to the professor’s English-spoken heritage, owed to his mother being a Scot. She repeats Faurisson’s anecdote, often used to introduce himself to an English-speaking audience, that his French ear should not listen to his Scottish ear because, whereas Scottish law permits inquiry and research into the “Holocaust”, French law does not.

Linguistic confusion arises when Lady Renouf speaks of guidelines (in French, “les consignes”) on how the “Holocaust” should be taught in schools, published in Stockholm in 2000. The translator is unable to translate the word for guidelines, using “guides” instead. Whether or not the greffière recorded a corrected version is uncertain; perhaps the court thought that Lady Renouf was talking about “tour guides”, at Auschwitz or elsewhere?

The Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust where the ‘Holocaust’ education guidelines were first announced was also the site of two physical attacks on Faurisson by Jewish terrorist organisation LDJ (Ligue de Défence Juive or Jewish Defence League). These guidelines instruct all public and private schools worldwide not to give a platform to revisionists. Lady Renouf summarises, stating that historical debate and rational argument do not seem to be part of educational guidelines on this subject. There are no questions from the court.

Maître Viguier promptly urges the professor to talk about a case dating back to 1983 when he was accused of “falsifying history”. Faurisson explains that this was the catalyst which led to creation of the 1990 Fabius-Gayssot Act. He also recalls the work of British historian and semi-revisionist David Irving, along with the fact that neither Churchill nor de Gaulle ever mention any gas chambers. In fact, during WW1 already, UK national the Daily Express had written about enemy gas chambers as early as 1914. An investigation after the war ended in 1918 proved that the story was a propaganda lie. Again, in 1943, the same story about gas chambers appears in the Daily Express. This time, however, there was no similar post-war investigation. Another piece of vital evidence is the documented case of Marinka in Russia where the local mayor was shot dead by the German army for killing a Jewish woman. Many such examples exist yet are suppressed from public knowledge.

The professor then relates his victories over Raul Hilberg and Jean-Claude Pressac; cites Valerie Igounet’s book of smears Histoire du négationnisme en France and tells us that Ariane Chemin didn’t know who Hilberg was when she interviewed the professor in Vichy for Le Monde newspaper. Faurisson also names the director of Yad Vashem 1953-1959, Ben-Zion Dinur, who resigned after coming to the realisation there were far too many false witnesses.

Change of tone as Mâitre Christian Charrière-Bournazel representing LICRA comes to the bar. He’s clearly unhappy about having been forced to listen to Faurisson for two hours (in reality Faurisson had only spoken for an hour and a half), although it’s doubtful Charrière-Bournazel will be complaining quite so much when he receives his fat fee. The only accusation is restricted to the same, tired refrain: when Faurisson mentions the state of Israel and international Zionism, Faurisson means Jews. Faurisson is a racist. Faurisson has already been prosecuted and convicted , etc., etc.

The state prosecutor raises even more eyebrows as she tries to stabilise her microphone (no working mic and a dodgy translator suggest the French judiciary can’t afford to run their courts properly?). Diabolical smears regards Faurisson’s personality as well as the obligatory jibe about using the court room as a platform from which, according to Madame la Procureure, Faurisson would take immense gratification. Perhaps the most telling phrase amongst all the outright lies and smears (paid for by the French tax payer, of course) is when the prosecutor states Faurisson should no longer be given the possibility of further court appearances.

Maître Viguier once again stands to contest the accusation’s claims. That the professor’s words in Tehran constitute ‘defamation’ is a fraudulent lie. The professor’s work is that of an historian. Viguier protests his colleague’s conflation of Israel and Jews, defiantly and correctly stating that conflict in the Middle East could be seen as one direct result of the lies of the Shoah. Faurisson’s work, he insists, will last as long as does this mensonge (“lie”). Viguier deplores the moral order inflicted upon revisionists in the name of war and war crimes, and which effectively prevents revisionists from doing their job.

The judge invites Faurisson to have the last word. Faurisson is finally able to respond to Charrière-Bournazel’s earlier attacks by comparing the lawyer’s attitude and manner to that of an enflure (in the sense of over-exaggerated, self-important, turgid). This warrants an admonishment of Faurisson by the judge, who then fails to chastise Charrière-Bournazel for leaving the court in a show of brazen pomposity whilst Faurisson is still speaking.

Faurisson finishes with another couple of examples of dubious witness statements and mistranslations which have been used by propagandists to bolster the case for a presumed genocide of countless Jews. We’re told of the wildly varying death toll estimates and asked why those who revised the official Auschwitz death toll – down from four to one-and-a-half million – were not punished in the same atrocious manner which Faurisson has been subjected to throughout his career.

The prosecution is demanding a month’s prison sentence and a 3,000 euro fine in the event of a guilty verdict. We shall now have to wait to September 27 to hear the court’s ruling.

Creation of the state of Israel came about in part via the Haavara Agreement. Will this same pact also be partly responsible for the Jewish state’s demise?

Thirty-two years have passed since Edwin Black published his authoritative work on the 1933 pact between Hitler and Zionist Jews known as Haavara or The Transfer Agreement. For the past two years, I have been tweeting and sharing a YouTube video of the only interview Black ever gave about his book. For a Zionist Jew like Black, the pain of revisiting this episode has meant that, since publication, he has remained mostly silent on the subject.

Last week, British veteran politician and former Labour Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was set up and harangued by arch-Zionist colleague – the despicable John Mann MP – concerning the Labour party’s suspension a day or two earlier of novice MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah. In fact, Zionists had been trawling Shah’s Facebook posts of the past two years and had found an ancient post where she suggests Israeli Jews should be relocated to the United States.

(Of course, all this is part of a bigger plot on the part of Zionists – both Labour and Tory – to discredit and smear the Labour leader and veteran left-winger, Jeremy Corbyn. More on that later).

Livingstone, faced with Mann’s brutal verbal assault concerning Shah’s suspension, decided to air the topic of Haavara in Shah’s defence. Yes, there was indeed a pact between Hitler and Zionist Jews in the 1930s. Livingstone was merely stating historical fact.

Cue a tsunami of embittered outrage from Zionists of the Left, Right and Centre including, amusingly, a raft of Haavara Denial from the usual culprits whose prime motive is their own supremacist outlook at the expense of freedom of expression and, indeed, of humanity itself. Whatever happened to Jew suis Charlie..?

Haavara brings into question everything that the mainstream has taught us about Hitler and the Jews. Not only do we have Black’s book on the subject, we have original documents of the agreement which can be researched in any public library. There is even a publication which groups these 51 documents (yes! 51!) available on Amazon. Unlike the alleged genocide of the Jews and Hitler’s gas chambers, we have actual, concrete proof in the form of original documents which cannot be denied. Thus, Ken Livingstone’s moment of dis-glory (like Shah now also suspended from the Labour Party) lifts the lid on the whole ‘Holocaust’ narrative.

No official documents relating to any extermination order have ever been found. Idem for the alleged homicidal gas chambers. There are no photos, no plans, not even a drawing or sketch. Not that this prevented the victors of WW2 from finding the whole of Germany guilty of mass murder – without proof – at Nuremberg. How would you like to be tried and found guilty of murder on the word of eye-witnesses only, without forensics? That’s effectively what happened and the German people as well as the Palestinians (and, for that matter, the entire planet) have been paying the price ever since.

Since Livingstone and Shah’s suspensions, several more Labour members have been suspended for Facebook posts about Hitler. Note, it’s perfectly acceptable for right wing Tory racists and even for Israeli PM Netanyahu to revise history and mention old Adolf. Just not for Labour; nor bien sûr for ‘Holocaust’ revisionists.

Corbyn is playing the game. Labour MPs, councillors and other supporters are dropping like flies for supposed antisemtisim and there will be more suspensions to come as Zionists comb every Facebook post that anyone connected with Labour has ever published. These people have too much time and money on their hands: a modern-day Stasi with the moral compass of a flock of vultures.

Nevertheless, Corbyn has one remaining positive factor in all this: he still refuses to say whether or not he supports and recognises Israel. I say Corbyn shouldn’t worry too much: voters have already made their stance clear on his leadership and he seems cunning enough to know how to react without betraying his own, long-held values and belief in freedom for the Palestinian people.

Zionists know how to make a lot of noise when it suits them, but they are relatively few and we are many. It’s clear that Ken Livingstone’s faux pas in the eyes of our Zionist-controlled media and government has already had huge repercussions in stirring people’s interest. Yes, we’ve been lied to. Once full realisation hits home for good, Zionism’s days will be numbered and the rogue state Israel will self-destruct.

It’s been a long time coming. Let us relish the demise of this cancer on society and look forward to a brighter day when all of us can enjoy our natural rights, equally and without prejudice.